Joy Christian wrote:These issues have been addressed previously. Please see the last paragraph of this page (reproduced below):
http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/With the bomb made out of two squashy balls (instead of a single ball) which rapidly reshape to perfectly round spheres, the determination of spin directions would be easier, since the spin and rotation axes for each sphere would then be the same. It would still be important to eliminate aerodynamic effects before the final shapes are stabilized. A good quality check of the setup would be to compare how accurately the spins are anti-parallel, thus making sure that the singlet property for each pair of the measured spins is maintained.
***
It addresses the particular complications of discerning between spin axis and angular momentum, and unpredictable aerodynamic turbulence, that a rigid shell half would present. I guess squash balls might suffice as the squishy balls. But otherwise does not answer the fact that at best there one can only generate quasi-randomness in spins. Also, how exactly are the squishy balls held together under compression, before an instant and clean release is enacted? The devil is in the details here.
There is no possible 'spooky action at a distance' going on here, hence, it should suffice to reduce the setup to that of a single spinning ball and detector. Relying on exact anti-parallel spins and common lineaqr momentum axis, IF two balls were involved. Exactly how to induce truly random spin still seems tricky, but at least now one could use a vertical, gravity powered drop path for the sole ball used, paradoxically eliminating gravity as a complication i.e. no parabolic trajectory(s) involved.
But even if that matter of obtaining truly random spin could be practically solved, it misses one fundamental fact. Here, the classical detection involves no appreciable physical interaction between ball and detector (or rather detection system). Whereas in the quantum version, it's 'traditionally' all about entanglement between BOTH particle(s) AND detector(s). There is strong particle-detector physical coupling involved. If detection is say spin up, the particle then really has fully spin up. Not merely just getting over the line via a mathematical assignment based on sign((s^2).a) = +1 or -1 (as per that article you cited). This seems like a crucial distinction to me.